J. R. Soc. Interface 12, 20141351 (14 January 2015; Published online) (doi:10.1098/rsif.2014.1351)
We would like to correct a misprint. In figure 5g of the published article, FF15 is written incorrectly as FF125 in the y-axis. Below is the figure with correct captions.
Figure 5.
FAK silencing decreases RMS displacement and motility coefficient, whereas ROCK silencing increases them especially under flow conditions. (a) MSCs with ROCK–shRNA had an increased total cell displacement. (b) The confinement ratio showed a similar increase for ROCK–shRNA. (c) No significant changes were detected for the arrest coefficient other than a lower value for ROCK–shRNA than for FAK–shRNA. (d) Silenced cells still showed preferred migration along the flow direction. (e) ROCK-silenced cells under flow spent significantly more time migrating with the flow direction. (f) Silenced cells also showed a peak speed after the flow onset. (g) RMS displacement plotted against square root of time showed shear stress-dependent increases. (h) In the same type of plot, FAK–shRNA decreased RMS displacement for both static and flow conditions. ROCK interference increased RMS displacement especially under flow conditions. (i) Calculated motility coefficient increased with increasing shear stress. It had lower values for FAK–shRNA for both static and shear conditions relative to vector control counterparts. MSCs with ROCK–shRNA at FF15 exhibited the greatest motility coefficient among test conditions. The bar graphs are presented as the mean with SEM. Static control, plus; FF2, square; FF15, circle; FF25, inverted triangle; FAK–shRNA static, diamond; FAK–shRNA FF15, multiplication symbol; ROCK–shRNA static, left inverted triangle; ROCK–shRNA FF15, delta symbol. *, ** and ***: p < 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 compared with vector control static. ‡, ‡‡ and ‡‡‡: p < 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001 compared with FAK–shRNA static. ++ and +++: p < 0.01 and 0.001 compared with ROCK–shRNA static.